It was one of the deadliest days in Iraq since the invasion. One suicide bomber attacked just a few yards from a Shiite shrine in the holy city of Karbala. Another attacker hit a police recruiting station in Ramadi, killing about 70 Iraqis and two U.S. troops, says the LAT, which had a reporter in the area. Another roadside bomb killed five GIs on patrol in Baghdad.

The Post says that after the bombing in Sunni-dominated Ramadi, residents "did something they had never publicly done": They blamed jihadists. "Neither the Americans nor the Shiites have any benefit in doing this. It is Zarqawi," said one resident.

Everybody has the latest on Sharon, who is now in what doctors say is a medically induced coma. Doctors said they won't really get a sense of his condition until the coma ends, but there's little hope. Citing what seems to be a mix of Sharon's doctors and outside experts, the Israeli paper Haaretzconcludes, "Damage could range from impaired physical and mental functioning to spending the rest of his life in a permanent vegetative state—if he survives at all." (Sharon was rushed back into surgery this morning when doctors detected more bleeding in his brain.)

The WP teases and others mention the president inviting former top national security officials from both Democratic and Republican administrations for a sit-down to chat about Iraq and such. Most of the papers play up the gentle criticism. "A NOT-ALWAYS-DIPLOMATIC GATHERING," says the LAT. Only the NYT catches what seems like a relevant detail: "Mr. Bush allowed five to 10 minutes for interchange with the group."

Everybody flags the note found on one of the miners who died in West Virginia. "Tell all—I see them on the other side," wrote Martin Toler Jr., whose family released the note. "It wasn't bad, I just went to sleep. I love you." Doctors said the one miner who survived may have brain damage; he's still in a coma but it's early yet.

Earlier this week, TP flagged a "signing statement" President Bush submitted with the McCain anti-torture amendment seeming to assert that the administration was not ultimately bound by the law. TP suggested that the papers ask the White House where it stands on the amendment.

Well, the Boston Globe, at least, has done just that. The White House's answer: Sure we're bound by the torture ban—except when we decide we're not. Or as an (anonymous) administration spokesperson put it, ''Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case." That did not make Sens. McCain, Warner, or Graham happy.